HUGUENOTS-WALLOONS-EUROPE-L Archives

Archiver > HUGUENOTS-WALLOONS-EUROPE > 2006-12 > 1165482213


From: "Herman Labuschagne" <>
Subject: [HWE] Historical perspective re. Huguenots, Cathars & Waldensians
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:03:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: <008e01c71955$fe0df2b0$6f09f204@user5f5fd67406>


Greetings all,

Explaining the time-periods and core religious beliefs of the different
religious sects that flourished between 1000 and 1700 AD will lead to a
lengthy and complicated discussion. Not everybody will find it interesting
or appropriate enough to make a big deal of on this list.

However, there are some inter-relationships between these sects that
ultimately impact on Huguenot history. We tend to sense that these groups
somehow had something to do with each other, but end up becoming rather lost
in the confusing maze of vague historical information about them. What are
the real facts? Should Cathars and Huguenots be discussed on the same forum
at all? Perhaps if we look into history we may find that answer.

A lot of conflicting information exists about the Cathars as a historical,
religiously-identified group. Many authors are correct in pointing out that
since very little of the original sect manuscripts exist, what we know about
them must chiefly be learnt from what their enemies wrote about them. That
means we have to rely on biased and historically inaccurate information, but
if that's the best we've got, that's all we can work with. This also means
that one has to read very widely, and then try to put together a big picture
that separates the obviously wrong facts from the plausible and the
probable. Fortunately, a fair amount of pretty old historical resources are
still available, from which we can learn a lot about the movement that
constituted the Cathars.

By doing this, I can offer a big picture overview which may possibly be
useful in roughly understanding how the sects fitted together.

This is how it began: During the centuries surrounding the first millennium
AD an enormous religious upsurge took place in Eastern Europe, the Black-
and Caspian sea regions, Armenia, and later even parts of present-day
Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, etc. This was fuelled to a certain extent by
non-Catholic Christians fleeing persecution in Asia Minor. History speaks
about them using different names, but mostly they were known as Paulicians
(for their claim of following the teachings of the Apostle Paul), or
Bogomils.

Under constant persecution this religious upsurge gradually declined in the
east, while spreading progressively westwards, particularly to the southern
regions of France--and probably via trade routes. (We can trace them as we
see their core beliefs surfacing in new regions).

Around the beginning of the twelfth century, another major upsurge erupted
in south-eastern France and the Alpine regions--and upsurge which is to a
large extent associated with Catharism (can sometimes be translated as
"puritanism"). Here, however, distinctions become characteristically blurred
again, because of the rise of the Waldensian movement from the 1160's
onwards. It is important to realize that Catharism and Waldensianism can
often be regarded as completely-, or almost synonymous. At the very least,
there was significant overlap between the two groups--if indeed, one should
even draw such a distinction. Generally, however, I believe it is fair to
say that the southern French religious upsurge tends to be regarded as
"Catharic" in earlier years, and "Waldensian" in later years. Towards the
end the Waldensian movement started fizzling out under severe persecution.
Many fled France, while the rest were mostly exterminated, became Catholic,
or gravitated towards Protestant beliefs until they became completely
Protestant.

The fact is, however, that to a large extent, the Waldensian movement
eventually proved a kind of spring-board from which the Protestantism
developed. Even if only by virtue of it having been practically the
"official opposition" of Catholicism for centuries. And from that, of
course, our Huguenot interest arises.

However, there are interesting complications when researching the big
picture regarding the Cathar/Waldensian movements. For one thing, different
people called these religious sects different names in different regions and
at different times, such as "Cathars, Waldensians, Sabatarians, Anabaptists,
Albigensians, etc). Some authors seem to imply that these were all
distinctly different groups, but this is not really an idea that is
supported by historical facts. So we are faced with considerable, but
unnecessary name confusion regarding the names by which they were known.

Perhaps we should ask, what did these sects have in common? Here arises
another difficulty. During different times and in different places, this
religious movement apparently subscribed to differing religious beliefs.
Largely, however, they tended to be primarily distinguished as being Sabbath
keepers, not Sunday keepers. They tended not to practice infant baptism,
they shunned the use of religious icons, (among which often were crosses),
and religious statues, relics and idols. There were many differences besides
these, but that becomes a topic on its own. These are but a few examples
that stand out, however. Just bear in mind that their history is speckled
with exceptions to many generalizations.

The problem is compounded when one realizes that even WITHIN this religious
upsurge, there were different sects and schools of thought. Some were more
strict, others more liberal. Catholic sources also confuse the issue by
ascribing a wide range of beliefs to this religious stream. Historians that
take isolated references out of context, of course, fall into this trap
easily. For instance, accusations were sometimes made that they sacrificed
children and practiced outrageous rituals and improbably beliefs which can
sometimes hardly be described in polite company. I think thorough historians
see through the obvious nonsense rather quickly. But the wild claims
certainly still influence the thinking of less experienced people. And this
is hardly surprising, because similar accusations were made against
Huguenots, Jews and other "heretics." I mean, you can hardly burn a village
full of hymn-singing men, women and children if you can't accuse them of a
heresy that is so sensational that it provokes the most extreme moral
outrage. And yet, at times, their enemies could not help but commenting on
many surprising virtues of these people, such as the facts that they knew
the Scriptures extremely well, lived unusually moral lifestyles, were very
industrious, were prepared to follow their faith to the point of martyrdom,
had a unique level of literacy, and were basically good upstanding, loyal
citizens in most ways. So the principle is this: one has to look at the big
picture and try to read between the lines in order to find the common-sense
background that underlies the rhetoric and self-justifying propaganda.

All of this is just background, however, and perhaps not of the most direct
relevance to a Huguenot forum. However, the point I want to make--which IS
very relevant--is that from a religious-beliefs point of view, there is very
little in common between this centuries-old religious movement that included
the Cathars, and the faith of the Protestants and Huguenots.

However, sometimes we may be forgiven for almost wanting to believe that
there was a connection. The connection could be found in the fact that BOTH
movements were obviously anti-Catholic, and BOTH groups were severely
persecuted by the Roman faith. The religious movement which preceded the
Protestant Reformation (Waldensians, Cathars, Bogomils and the rest), were
just persecuted for far longer and on a much bigger scale, that's all. Also,
the last of the Waldensian era overlapped with the earlier Protestant era.
During these times, it happened often enough that they SHARED the same
persecutions and were referred to COLLECTIVELY by their enemies.
Furthermore, many Waldensians later BECAME Protestants...

Indeed, the point is sometimes made that the Reformation leaders drew much
of their initial inspiration from the preceding Waldensian/Cathar era. This
is not quite my field of interest, but it seems reasonable that there is a
certain amount of merit in this belief, but again, I can't say to what
extent because I haven't looked into it much.

So to re-emphasize my conclusion, I believe that based on their underlying
religious beliefs the Waldenians/Cathars/Bogomils etc. all form part of one
distinct historical religious movement. However, the Protestant movement,
which had some roots in this preceding movement, became a distinctly
different religious movement yet again.

So we are indeed talking about two DIFFERENT groups of people, even though
they had several interesting things in common. It would in my opinion be
historically incorrect to call Cathars Protestants. And as such, Cathars and
Huguenots don't have much in common, except some ancient history. The
question is then, should we even be discussing Cathars on this list?

I'd say, "Perhaps..." Let me illustrate an interesting example where Cathar
knowledge would have avoided a long-standing historical error:

If we accept my contention that Cathars and Waldensians are largely
synonymous, then here is the interesting part of the story: In South African
genealogy, many of our founding fathers are routinely called "Huguenots" in
history--even in the most respected of sources. However, they were
absolutely nothing of the kind! These families were in actual fact, genuine
Waldensians from the south of France--often from the Piedmond region (a
famous Waldensian hot-spot).

So why on earth does history still call them Huguenots? I believe this is
because too many genealogists just don't know the difference between the
two. Many don't know the difference, simply because they think that if you
study a group's religious beliefs, you are confusing theology with
history--which of course is nonsense. The two are inter-dependent, that's
all.

The thing is just that the Waldensians/Cathars often fled along the SAME
routes and shared some of the SAME adventures and outcomes as the Huguenots.
The late Waldensian/Cathars and the Huguenots pretty much shared the same
situations. As such, they had a lot of contact with each other and shared
many sympathies. Later on, it appears that some families even had members in
both religious movements. So to the casual observer, it LOOKS like they're
Huguenot, when they're not. Also, for the most part, wherever they went, the
Waldensians/Cathars lost the remnants of their faith astonishingly quickly.
Not willing to become Catholics, then, they chose the next best thing and
joined their Huguenot compatriots. So very quickly in history we tend to see
them as nothing but ordinary Huguenots...

So then, perhaps it is good that we have briefly examined the Cathar
question on this list. At least this may help some not to continue making
the same fatal mistake of confusing "Waldensians/Cathars" with "Huguenots."

Finally, can we say that there are still Cathar descendants? Of course there
are. Literally hundreds of thousands of people over 6 or more centuries and
a multitude of countries just don't disappear off the face of the earth!
They couldn't possibly have all become genetically exterminated during the
Albigensian crusades. And history can prove it without question.

For example: I have Waldensian (Cathar) forebears (Mesnard/Maynard, Roux, Le
Grange, etc) so I guess I would count as one. But I also have unquestionably
Huguenot forefathers, such as Labuschagne.

So perhaps the next question would be, "does the Cathar/Waldensians faith
still exist today? There are indeed groups who make this claim. I however,
believe it is fair to conclude that as a time-based historical faith
movement, they died out completely. From it, however, arose scattered
branches of dominations all over the world which can (or profess to) trace
their origin to the Cathars, but which mostly today subscribe to a theology
that covers a very, very wide spectrum of beliefs. Some are closer to
ancient Cathar beliefs than others. Some are truly Protestant today, and
others are "Christian, but certainly not main-stream Protestant." So we have
scattered schools of thought still. Nothing ever really changes, does it?

Best regards,
Herman Labuschagne
Johannesburg, South Africa


This thread: